Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11065
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
Maharajah AlakNarayan Society of Arts and Science (MANSAS) – Appellant
Versus
The Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) – Respondent
WP No: 14618 of 2025 | IA No. 1 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri P. Lakshmi Priyanvitha
For the Respondents: Sri I. Balaji, Standing Counsel
The court established that jurisdictional challenges arise when contributions are adjusted wrongly, necessitating a stay of demand notices pending case resolution.
Headnote:(A) The Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - The jurisdiction of authorities concerning the adjustment of contributions was questioned in light of a Notice of Demand issued by the EPFO. (Paras 1-2).
(B) The validity and correctness of the Notice of Demand were under scrutiny as the petitioners claimed they deposited the contributions in the wrong account, leading to jurisdictional challenges (Paras 3-4).
(C) The court emphasized the need to assess the authority's jurisdiction to adjudge such contributions while issuing the stay.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered a stay on the notice of demand issued against the petitioners pending the disposal of the main writ petition.
Issues: The primary issue revolved around whether the authority had jurisdiction to adjust the contributions wrongly deposited.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that given the erroneous deposit, jurisdictional consideration was essential and therefore, a stay was warranted.
Result: Application allowed.
I dt.o4.04.2025, served on the 2nd petitioner on 12.04.2025, Pending disposal of wp No. 14618 of 2025, on the file of'the High Court.
The court while direct-lng issue:-of notice to the Respondents herein to show cause as to why this applicat,:!'o`ri:'Sh+6uld not be complied with, made the following order.(The receipt of this-:6'rjrier-wi[[ be deemed to be the receipt of notice in the case), The Court made``|-ffiS`'foIIowing ORDER Eflmpugning the not:ice of d6-]ha'a'nd issued by respondent No.2 v,-de RRC.No.GRVSP/DOVZM71/7813/1y4E=/z-6^1/2025/73, dated 04.04.2025 (Ex.P1 ), the above writ petition is `fil6tdi Heard Sri V. Srinjvas, leap,ned Senior Counsel assisted by + I•-._rl: ;_hi'-;-..
smt.p.Lakshmi Priyanvitha, ]earne`¢_.-`¢9unSel for the Petitioner. 4 i.:!-i_]f?;:-
As seen from the mateFial`'`!:rifai[able on record, the petitioner deposited the entire contributiom. However, the same was wrongly, deposited in Account No.10 insteadi-,,of Account No.1 and vice-versa. In fact, the authority considered the sa'id fact in the order, is of the opinion that it has no jurisdiction to adjulstlth'e':contribution.
'.--I_€,i--,i:I.iii -<'-I_ _
whether the authority got jur`isdibtion to adJ-uSt the COntributiOn O+
-_--:. | .+I '= -.
not, requires consideration.
`|`+--.-,::.=',.I,-i=s\.
Given 1:he facts and circuri§{a`fiees of the case, there Sha[[ be Stay --o _+ ~+.-_i, i ::`\.+-4--``\}_:,,i bf all further proceedings in purs'ti-ance of the notice of demand issued by respondent No.2 v,-c'e Jl-i'`JREae':No.GRVSP/DOVZIVl71/7813/14B/Z-
